Saturday, October 22, 2011

Kate Bolick tells us why

Kate Bolick is the latest in a spate of women to regret leaving marriage to so late in life. Her explanation of what went wrong is well worth reading.

She begins by noting that she had a terrific chance to marry in her late 20s, which she turned down:

In 2001, when I was 28, I broke up with my boyfriend. Allan and I had been together for three years, and there was no good reason to end things. He was (and remains) an exceptional person, intelligent, good-looking, loyal, kind. My friends, many of whom were married or in marriage-track relationships, were bewildered.

Why would she do that? Her answer is twofold: the autonomy theory she was brought up on led her to prioritise independence over relationships, and she assumed that there would always be men for her to partner with.

Let's begin with the assumption that there would always be eligible men seeking her out. Kate Bolick is a very physically attractive woman. She describes how in her 20s she managed easily to pursue serial long-term relationships with men:

Today I am 39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count and, I am told, two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a “good enough” mate. At this point, certainly, falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck. A decade ago, luck didn’t even cross my mind. I’d been in love before, and I’d be in love again. This wasn’t hubris so much as naïveté; I’d had serious, long-term boyfriends since my freshman year of high school, and simply couldn’t envision my life any differently.

...That we would marry, and that there would always be men we wanted to marry, we took on faith.

Despite the advantage of her good looks, she now doesn't have the pick of men but feels she must settle. Where have all the "good men" gone? She observes:

...as women have climbed ever higher, men have been falling behind. We’ve arrived at the top of the staircase, finally ready to start our lives, only to discover a cavernous room at the tail end of a party, most of the men gone already, some having never shown up—and those who remain are leering by the cheese table, or are, you know, the ones you don’t want to go out with.

Most of the men have already married, others have dropped out. And fewer suitable man are available anyway as women have pushed up the career ladder, with many of their male peers losing the motivation to do likewise. (Note the language Kate Bolick uses: "finally ready to start our lives". In her mind her 20s were just a kind of play life - a wait until her real life could finally begin in her 30s. But why delay your real life for so long?)

Bolick does recognise here the major issue that as women do increasingly better in education and careers than men that it becomes more difficult for women to marry up:

the decline of males has obviously been ... bad news for marriage. For all the changes the institution has undergone, American women as a whole have never been confronted with such a radically shrinking pool of what are traditionally considered to be “marriageable” men—those who are better educated and earn more than they do. So women are now contending with what we might call the new scarcity ... the new scarcity disrupts what economists call the “marriage market” in a way that in fact narrows the available choices, making a good man harder to find than ever. At the rate things are going, the next generation’s pool of good men will be significantly smaller. What does this portend for the future of the American family?

Bolick is aware, too, that as her youth and fertility decline that she is losing ground in the dating market to younger women:

I am fully aware that with each passing year, I become less attractive to the men in my peer group, who have plenty of younger, more fertile women to pick from.

All of these are important and meaty issues which are covered very well at various sites on the net. But the other part of Kate Bolick's explanation is rarely dealt with, perhaps because it requires a more fundamental rethink of modern values.

Kate Bolick tells us very clearly that she was raised to prioritise individual autonomy. And the logic of autonomy was that she should remain independent for as long as possible.

I was her first and only recruit, marching off to third grade in tiny green or blue T-shirts declaring: A Woman Without a Man Is Like a Fish Without a Bicycle, or: A Woman’s Place Is in the House—and the Senate, and bellowing along to Gloria Steinem & Co.’s feminist-minded children’s album, Free to Be...You and Me...

...my future was to be one of limitless possibilities...This unfettered future was the promise of my time and place...We took for granted that we’d spend our 20s finding ourselves, whatever that meant, and save marriage for after we’d finished graduate school and launched our careers, which of course would happen at the magical age of 30.

Limitless possibilities. An unfettered future. No restrictions on what can be autonomously chosen. Someone brought up to believe in this isn't going to think seriously about how our choices need to be ordered and about how a workable framework to society needs to be organised and maintained.

Here again Kate Bolick writes about her prioritising of independence over love:

When I embarked on my own sojourn as a single woman in New York City...it wasn’t dating I was after. I was seeking something more vague and, in my mind, more noble, having to do with finding my own way, and independence.

She continues later by praising the Mosuo in China for their matrilineal culture in which there is no stable marriage commitment:

The matrilineal Mosuo are worth pausing on, as a reminder of how complex family systems can be, and how rigid ours are...For centuries, the Mosuo have lived in households that revolve around the women...

Sexual relations are kept separate from family. At night, a Mosuo woman invites her lover to visit her babahuago (flower room)...there are no expectations or rules. As Cai Hua, a Chinese anthropologist, explains, these relationships, which are known as açia, are founded on each individual’s autonomy, and last only as long as each person is in the other’s company. Every goodbye is taken to be the end of the açia relationship, even if it resumes the following night. “There is no concept of açia that applies to the future,” Hua says.

But the really important quote is this one:

In the months leading to my breakup with Allan, my problem, as I saw it, lay in wanting two incompatible states of being—autonomy and intimacy...

This is what she sees as her problem. This is why she dropped the man she might have married and had children with. And she is right - autonomy and intimacy (i.e. autonomy and committed love) are incompatible. You have to decide on how to order them: do you sacrifice a measure of your autonomy to enjoy the good of marital love? Or do you reject a stable relationship to maintain autonomy?

Most of us decide that the fulfilment of a good marriage and having children is the higher good. But Kate Bolick, having been raised from girlhood to value autonomy above all else, has never been able to come to this decision decisively.

She is still caught in a kind of limbo in wanting both things. This is clear in her writing in which she jumps from regrets about not having married and her missed opportunities to ideas about marriage being a false historical construct to be replaced by more flexible living arrangements.

Her current compromise appears to be a desire to find a community of women to find companionship with. That is probably one of the worst options she could take.

Anyway, the larger lesson is that there are losses in making autonomy the overriding good in society. We can certainly value autonomy, but it's wrong to think of it as the highest, ordering principle of society.

49 comments:

She can find a guy, but she wants to marry up.Few men want to be with a woman who has a long sexual history.So I guess she has to pull of the "shy virgin woman" act.Tough to do, when she has her looks to go against that.

...as women have climbed ever higher, men have been falling behind. We’ve arrived at the top of the staircase, finally ready to start our lives, only to discover a cavernous room at the tail end of a party, most of the men gone already,

Most of the men are married already, yet THEY are the ones who have "fallen behind"? Wrong, toots. YOU are the one who fell behind. They married already, ahead of you!

I gave up autonomy when I decided to get married. I was well off as a single man. I'd almost paid off my smaller mortgage. Then came marriage and economic misery. Now I have a largish mortgage and a $1000 car. I do, however, have several beautiful kids. One day, if I live long enough, my wife will return to work full-time and we should do ok. Until then we do it tough.

I have known many, many women like Kate Bolick, having grown up with more or less her cohort of highly-educated, high-achieving, oversexed women.

Frankly, all this article does is make me smile. As dysfunctional as it may be, it's also extremely pleasurable watching these bitches who poked their pushy feminist fingers in our chests 20 years ago suffering now for their own choices and outlook. It's just frankly a delicious Schadenfreude, probably the mother of all Schadenfreude.

"Mosuo in China for their matrilineal culture in which there is no stable marriage commitment:

The matrilineal Mosuo are worth pausing on, as a reminder of how complex family systems can be, and how rigid ours are...For centuries, the Mosuo have lived in households that revolve around the women...

Sexual relations are kept separate from family."

It seems she practiced Mosuo way of life thru her life.The only difference she did not got children and does not live in misery as single mother.And I suspect that 40 year old Mosuo women are equally unable to find a mate as she is.

Men have realized too late that exposing themselves to women is inherently risky. Women will never judge men by anything other than status gain and primal impulses. Autonomy theory makes those permanent attributes less palatable to men.

Kate Bollocks is only sorry about the consequences, not her personal morality and actions that led to her loneliness.

What I'd be interested in finding out is how deep the fractures are in our society. While not visible on the surface, could the multi-generational petulance of young women towards men have irreparably split our civilization on gender lines?

Do white men perceive themselves as having any stake in preserving the current order? Could it happen that Muslims will appeal to the Western man's sense of humilation? The future crisis over culture will bring existential pressures on our civilization. How long it will hold together - or quickly it will fracture remains to be seen.

Somebody should remind Bolick that hypergamy is incompatible with feminism.I would say a clear majority of feminists are in favor of the elimination of class structure based on wealth. Ergo, they should be advocating to women that such women should marry poorer men.

"What I'd be interested in finding out is how deep the fractures are in our society. While not visible on the surface, could the multi-generational petulance of young women towards men have irreparably split our civilization on gender lines? "

It has like a wrecking ball. I can tell you as a young white male in Australia I have zero attachment or connection to Australian society especially the women. This was not my desire I know that for a fact. I very much would like to feel attachment and connection to Australian society. Its just not realistic.Life experience here has shown me that my fellow Australians give not two ***** about me. Many Australia women either openly despise me or ridicule me for my uncouth "whiteness" (as in literally my skin tone)

The point about muslims appealing to humiliated Australians. Yes they do! Its already a widespread phenomenom of white guys especially guys very similar to me (infact a close very christian friend did convert to islam)joining islam.They state (and many interviews support this) that the laws regarding women in islam is highly appealing.Can you blame them? After years of failed relationships, the bizarre unpredictable courting required to be with an Aussie girl(thus a waste of energy) and finally the flat out hate 'white' western women have for their men, has caused this.

I sympathise, but we really need men who are willing to persevere, to find the right type of Australian woman, and to work to change the destructive culture of relationships.

Joining Islam means that we allow our current political class to destroy untold generations of our own tradition. Better to work to reform what's gone wrong.

I'm going to encourage you to keep trying when it comes to relationships. Get yourself into a decent position at work, build self-confidence, put yourself in a position in which you keep meeting women, and don't let the flakier ones get you down.

As for loyalty, I wouldn't ask you to be loyal to things as they stand. The political class has no loyalty at all to us and we owe them no loyalty.

But we have to be able to envisage something else - building communities, no matter how small, which are based on better values and which are more functional. Other groups have achieved this and so can we.

I really do wish, for instance, that we were further along in this process so that I could offer you more practical support - including a chance to meet a different kind of woman.

Do white men perceive themselves as having any stake in preserving the current order?

Nope. I am a free man.

Could it happen that Muslims will appeal to the Western man's sense of humilation?

Sure, but not to me. I don't feel humiliated, because I refuse the harness. I'm lighting out for Latin America, baby! It's not too far gone, and hopefully the self-imolation of the West will serve as a useful and highly visible lesson to them. Y'all have fun now!

[W]e really need men who are willing to persevere, to find the right type of Australian woman, and to work to change the destructive culture of relationships.

Good luck with that, sparky. You sound like a WWI general talking about how we need men who are willing to go over the top, climb through that barbed wire, and storm those machine guns nests. No -- they needed tanks, and you need to change the laws. At least PUAs and MGTOW are putting some pressure on the current anti-male, anti-family regime. You want to play along and wish it all better. Bah.

There are some in the men's movement who have talked themselves into the idea that it's impossible to have a good, fulfilling marriage and that being a player or an eternal bachelor is a great lifestyle to lead.

I was never a player, but I did the MGTOW thing for a period of time. I found it not liberating but soul destroying. My marriage, in comparison, has been highly fulfilling.

Why doesn't she just find an older man? There are lots of single/divorced older men around who would love to have someone decent. These people are too damn fussy, but then, that's why they are where they are now.

Also, the idea of building a life together through the 20s seems to be lost. I am the same age as Kate and so grew up in exactly the same time she did, and yeah, that was pretty much the attitude that everyone had, myself included more or less. From some of what I see and read, things seem to be swinging back a bit. Here's hoping the next couple of generations see us X-ers and say "forget that!"

Mark, you talk about working and putting yourself in a position to meet women. Problem is women don't care about how hard one works but what job he has. And on top of it, the myth that white males are privileged is why women hate us. Some of it is deserved though.

The OWS movement isn't doing white males any favors. Those guys in fact give me a bad name merely because they refuse to start at the bottom of the ladder like I did. No, I didn't go to college or get in debt but I did start sweeping floors and washing dishes for little pay. 20 years later and I'm stable and am unemployed by choice. Everything is paid off and I'm living off of savings. Yet the most important ethic engrained in me is I'm not so egotistical to where if I had to, would not hesitate to pick up a broom again. There are many men like me, quiet and who mind their business and do all sorts of jobs but are marginalized and trivialized because of things like the OWS movements. Entitled and worthless spoiled whites, males and females alike who are too good for the jobs available to them. And a media that is of the same mentality yet none of the lives of hard working men are ever exposed by the liberal brain washing machine. And even sadder is that women do not care about them hence why those same guys are fed up with their society.

Many of us out there welcome a collapse of some sort. And many of us out there do wish it to harm women and to a lesser effect, spoiled white men.

I'm talking about building our own communities, not joining an alien one, presumably in a spirit of demoralisation.

If your "native" community does not share your values and also despises you, while the "alien" community has positive values, and welcomes you, you ought to keep an open mind about the "alien" community.

Amen. Women, especially white women hate us merely because it's the in thing to do. Not because they base their views on experiences but one where they are molded by media and social lies. The herd mentality at play. And then you're afraid of losing this society?

Women, especially white women hate us merely because it's the in thing to do.

Except that when they've done dating surveys it shows that white women would most like to date white men.

54% of white women in the US would strongly prefer to date someone of their own racial background. That's in contrast to, say, Asian women, only 18% of whom strongly prefer to date Asian men. So white women are a lot more loyal to men of their own race than are Asian women.

I know that there are some white women who have bought into the idea that it's more fashionable to date black men than white men (Liz Jones springs to mind as an example).

But the statistics seem to show that the larger problem is white women having to compete with women of other races to get a white husband.

Traditionalist white men should take heart from this and use their advantage in relation to dating white women.

If your "native" community does not share your values and also despises you

But it's not your community which despises you. It's the political class within it, which has much influence over the media and education system.

And this political class would love for you to give up your own heritage (which they despise) in order to join Islam (which has favoured "other" status).

Joining Islam means you are going along with the wishes of the people who are attacking you.

The better option is to get together with some of the 95% of those within your real historic community who aren't part of the liberal political class and live according to a better and less suicidal set of values.

If one delves in to history, there is more than enough evidence to show feminism, communism, autonomy theory etc are all part of a "plan" (for want of a better word) to destroy Anglo/Western society.

And one key factor was the attempt - now mostly successful - to eliminate traditional marriage, or reduce it to little of importance. Hence "partner" as opposed to wife or husband.

And hence 40 year old women who bemoan "where have all the good men gone?" Although what they really mean here is, "where have all the single wealthy men gone?" Luv, for the most part, they have gone and chosen those younger women who are happy to marry in their 20s or at least at an age younger than 38. Most other single men over 30 have been screwed by the financial system and now obviously not wealthy enough - or even good looking enough - to be considered by the likes of a 39 year old Kate Bolick!

This reflects a sad fact of life: the average female aged 18 to 50 is only interested in a man based soley on his socio-economic status i.e. money conquers all!

Having said that, now for a tiny - and I mean tiny - bit of good news from a land where feminism, autonomy theory and miscegenation are rife: In some parts of New Zealand, it is surprising to see a sizeable number of young/youngish white women married or partnered with white men, and...well...breeding. As in white women in their 20s and 30s with young children and babies.

There are some in the men's movement who have talked themselves into the idea that it's impossible to have a good, fulfilling marriage and that being a player or an eternal bachelor is a great lifestyle to lead.

Strawman. What about those men's movement who have realized that it's pretty unlikely to build a good, fulfilling marriage in the West, and that no marriage is better than a bad marriage?

I was never a player, but I did the MGTOW thing for a period of time. I found it not liberating but soul destroying.

I must have missed the part of this conversation in which I stated my enthusiasm for either the PUA or MGTOW lifestyle. They both kinda suck, but both are better than the meat grinder of a bad marriage and divorce theft. I just pointed out that men who follow them are doing something to change the rules of the game by altering the payoffs of that game to women.

My marriage, in comparison, has been highly fulfilling.

Good for you. My lifetime returns from blackjack are positive, but I don't recommend it as an investment strategy.

"I'm lighting out for Latin America, baby! It's not too far gone, and hopefully the self-imolation of the West will serve as a useful and highly visible lesson to them. Y'all have fun now!"

So to strike back at our women, you're going to have...foreign-looking kids. You're destroying your own line just to get back at a bunch of women who won't care anyway. That's not just self-immolation, man, that's pointless self-immolation.

Listen, I'm 29 and pretty unhappy with the choice of white women around me too. But even the most arrogant white woman is better than some foreign gold-digger. All women look for strength (e.g. physical, social, financial, etc.) in a man, just like all men look for beauty in a woman. Third world women aren't any purer of heart than white women; it's just that white men can far out-compete Third world men.

It's an unfair advantage your own mixed-race children won't be able to inherit. It's unfair to nonwhite men, and it's unfair to your own kids. Fight for your own women. There's one out there for you, man. Don't lose heart.

The idea that a man should simply "go out there and date plenty" is pretty funny in the light of the fact that most women want men to pay their way.So the only men who can "go out there and date plenty" are the ones with money.Congratulations, you win the gold digger who can move to your emotions.Not only that, "go out there and date plenty" ignores the very real risk of aversion conditioning.If you keep running into women who enjoy playing games ... you will very soon develop the idea that that is all they are good for.Why isn't there any suggestion for women to start making their own choices and taking the consequences? Why do men always have to initiate?

Also remember that the New Scientist in 2008 stated that for women in Australia and New Zealand born from 1975, fully 30% would never be able to find a partner.Time to "re-engage with Asia"... unless they happen to be racist.

So to strike back at our women, you're going to have...foreign-looking kids. You're destroying your own line just to get back at a bunch of women who won't care anyway.

1.) I'm not (primarily) doing this to "strike back" at anyone. I just want the best like I can have for myself and my progeny, and it ain't here.

2.) Re: "foreign-looking kids". There are all kinds of people in Latin America. Met many Argies?

3.) Re: "destroying your own line". I don't see how having 4 kids with a woman whose genotype might not pass muster with you is more damaging to my line than having 1 with a WW. And in a more patriarchal culture I'll have a better shot of passing on my values, &c.

4.) Re: "women who won't care anyway". Well, again, it's (shockingly!) not all about them. And they'll care (a tiny little bit, if they are smart enough to notice) when my productive capacity is withdrawn from a society that depends upon it to feed the transfer regime.

But even the most arrogant white woman is better than some foreign gold-digger.

An interesting argument, with which I'm not sure I agree -- I'm reminded of the old joke about an honest politician being one who has the decency to stay bought. But I think you overlook the possibility that not all foreign women are heartless, conniving gold-diggers. (At least, no more so that the anglo variety of their sex.)

Third world women aren't any purer of heart than white women; it's just that white men can far out-compete Third world men.

It's an unfair advantage your own mixed-race children won't be able to inherit.

Third-world women are products of their environments, which haven't driven them as insane as our WW. Western men do have some advantages relative to 3rd-world men: Greater access to resources due to the ease of making money in the West, and a sharper understanding of female psychology due to the Darwinian SMP here. (They have disadvantages, too.) But I'm puzzled by your claim that mixed-race children wouldn't inherit any advantages; frankly, you seem pretty racist, so I'd assume that you'd think a half-white would have an edge over a non-white. Or are you of the "one-drop-of-blood" school of thought?

And what's this "fair" nonsense?

Fight for your own women. There's one out there for you, man. Don't lose heart.

Thanks, I guess, but I'm not eager to risk my life, my fortune and my sacred honor to prop up a sick society that seems to have little use for me, and that has either neglected or actively opposed my interests for 50 years.

I think Twenty that we should reject liberalism (whether it's women's rights activists or men's rights activists) and stop aiding a modern society that despises orthodox religion and traditional conservatism while building our own communities. Attacking and destroying what is evil is right but we need to build and sustain what is good as well. It's one thing to be smart about the fight, it's another to give up the fight. Globalization is increasing malaise worldwide. Other countries are experiencing liberal Westernization unfortunately.

But I'm puzzled by your claim that mixed-race children wouldn't inherit any advantages; frankly, you seem pretty racist, so I'd assume that you'd think a half-white would have an edge over a non-white. Or are you of the "one-drop-of-blood" school of thought?

I myself am biracial with my father being African and my mother Caucasian. Some of the disadvantages are higher rates of depression (I experienced one) and identity issues. For example I sometimes don't know whether I should marry and have a child with an African or a Caucasian because I want to continue the lineage of both of my parents. The only routes would be (A) Not care about my family's lineage and continue mixing until any prominent race is 'extinguished' and create a multiracial individual or (B) Preserving my family's heritage through illegitimacy (marry an African man and have a child with him but have a child out of wedlock with a Caucasian man too). The problem is that I'm a virgin and chaste and waiting until marriage so while illegitimacy is an option if I have a child out of wedlock I won't offer my virginity to my future husband. If I have a child inside the marriage then that would be adultery. I could just choose to preserve only one lineage but that would be saddening for myself because the other part of me wasn't preserved and one of my parent's bloodline stopped at me. And that's just a couple of disadvantages/problems I listed.

The Argentines who are white have remained so precisely because they have not followed your advice, i.e. married without consideration of race.

"But I'm puzzled by your claim that mixed-race children wouldn't inherit any advantages;

I didn't say they wouldn't inherit any advantages. I said that they wouldn't inherit your whiteness. And it's your race that makes you stand out against the Third World men, a race your children won't share. In a generation, it'll be your sons watching the prettiest local girls, the girls they've grown up with all their lives, going for rich, foreign white men. I think you'll have a tougher time dismissing their appeals to fairness at that point.

It isn't wrong to say that children should look like their parents. That's a self-evident truth. Is that what you're calling "racism"?

It's a pity this type of feminism won't die, with these cultural self destructive women. What we need is a type of counter balance of family and community. These building blocks are still functional in society, in majority white communities. So it's no where near over.

I'm starting to think this hate feminism thing is killing chances of young white women, by turning off white men. A counter balance is needed for traditionalist or women who want white man to counter balance this.

White women need to get it out there that they want us still, we need to shout louder then the feminists basically. As that is what wins the cultural political war, is by who screams the loudest, not necessarily the best argument. Other wise radical feminists would not exist, the only reason they do is they scream there message louder.

We are all to certain degrees more liberal then our parents were unfortunately.

One question you can ask a white woman of preferable marriageable and child bearing years is...

"Do you want your children to look like you?"

"Yes" Means even if this white women is progressive, subconsciously she still holds onto traditional values. Women like this are harder, yet persevering with them pays off. As you CONVERT them back to our culture, we start winning the culture war. My wife was one such women.

Though my wife was put down the road of the dangerous path by a hopeless first Husband, who was a first school love. They married young.

So in a sense I helped preserve my culture by brining her back from the brink.

I all so believe we have to adapt to the times, these hyper-sexed women need to be satisfied, and if a Man can do this, the chances are she will stay with you, and the bond becomes even stronger.

Fact is women in there mid to late 20's early 30's will be more hyper sexed, as they start to hit there sexual prime. We need to adapt to the times.

I just think there is room for the traditionalist, conservative and the adaptive in the cultural preservation movement, as the more we persist the more we will skewer the culture back to tradition, even if adoptions are needed, to counter the liberalism.

The Argentines who are white have remained so precisely because they have not followed your advice, i.e. married without consideration of race.

Uhm ... who said race wasn't a consideration? Anyway, man, I'm mixed-central-European, so I'm sure I'm not white enough for you in any case. So don't lose anymore sleep about the racial composition of my future children, 'K?

(I was tempted to tell you that I'm black or Jewish -- or both -- just to screw with you, but I figure the truth will do.)

I didn't say they wouldn't inherit any advantages. I said that they wouldn't inherit your whiteness.

Well, no. You were really vague about what, exactly, my children wouldn't inherit:"[I]t's just that white men can far out-compete Third world men.

It's an unfair advantage your own mixed-race children won't be able to inherit."

Now you clarify:"And it's your race that makes you stand out against the Third World men, a race your children won't share."

You know, later on you ask what I'm calling "racism". This is pretty much it right here -- the disproportionate attention to and emphasis on "race" as some sort of a genotypical thing apparently independent of any phenotypical expression.

Besides, hell, if I have children with a castiza, they'd normally be considered espanol by the old rules. So another reason for you not to worry your little head about it.

In a generation, it'll be your sons watching the prettiest local girls, the girls they've grown up with all their lives, going for rich, foreign white men.

You haven't spent much time around latinas, have you? They like their rich white countrymen, too.

I think you'll have a tougher time dismissing their appeals to fairness at that point.

No ... fairness is bunk.

It isn't wrong to say that children should look like their parents.

And I've got a better shot of having a son that looks like me in Latin America than if I marry an Ameriskank. (Rim shot!)

Twenty said..."I'm mixed-central-European, so I'm sure I'm not white enough for you in any case"More of that 'wog' pride. Look you are either European 'white' or you aren't. Like i said in another topic. Faux Europeans...

But it's not your community which despises you. It's the political class within it, which has much influence over the media and education system.

Your "native" community (Australian whites) definitely despises you. That this is the result of the liberal elite indoctrinating Australian whites to despise themselves is beside the point.

And this political class would love for you to give up your own heritage (which they despise) in order to join Islam (which has favoured "other" status). Joining Islam means you are going along with the wishes of the people who are attacking you.

At the same time, Islam hates western liberalism, so you'd be joining a community that shares your feelings about liberalism and that would actively encourage you to be as socially conservative as you like (as opposed to your current community, which actively encourages you to avoid being socially conservative and attaches low social status to conservatives).

The better option is to get together with some of the 95% of those within your real historic community who aren't part of the liberal political class and live according to a better and less suicidal set of values.

You think that 95% of white Australians are not liberals? Of this I am skeptical.

In any event, whether traditional western values are suicidal or not, they have proven themselves unable to withstand the onslaught of liberalism. They have clearly failed in the marketplace of ideas and in the arena of political combat. Why side with the weak horse that is destined for the rubbish heap of history? Liberalism or Islam are the strong horses.

In any event, whether traditional western values are suicidal or not, they have proven themselves unable to withstand the onslaught of liberalism. They have clearly failed in the marketplace of ideas and in the arena of political combat. Why side with the weak horse that is destined for the rubbish heap of history? Liberalism or Islam are the strong horses.

Civilizations don't travel in a linear line towards utopia. Societies go in cycles. We have renewal, rise, stability, decay, decline and fall. We're currently somewhere between the decline and the fall and this is where liberalism is at its strongest yet its weakest. The best thing about liberalism is how its suicidal and bites the hand it feeds on. Its essentially a parasite and can only destroy, never create. Destroying seems easier than building. The key is for liberalism to let go of "unprincipled exceptions" and abide to the maximum (in its purest format). This will accelerate its demise quicker. Conservatives shouldn't aid liberalism either.

In any event, whether traditional western values are suicidal or not, they have proven themselves unable to withstand the onslaught of liberalism. They have clearly failed in the marketplace of ideas and in the arena of political combat.

But that doesn't describe what has happened. For most of Western history liberalism did not seek to rule by its own principles alone as the only source of authority or value; there was a fusion with more traditional values.

It was during the course of the twentieth century that liberalism became progressively more radical in seeking to impose its own principles alone as the ruling principles of society.

And the problem with resistance is that the political culture by then was caught in a combat between left and right forms of liberalism.

So there never was some kind of great showdown between the massed forces of liberalism and the massed forces of traditionalism.

How can we tell if traditionalist ideas will succeed in the marketplace of ideas if they are never put out there?

(Lawrence Auster, by the way, without any institutional support, has managed to build a considerable readership: 3,000,000 hits in the month of August of this year; my own site has been doubling its readership every year.)

One thing traditionalists are up against is that many Western men are dispirited and don't have the heart to resist - they would rather find a multitude of ways of giving up.

I think that will continue until the more spirited (or the more stubborn!) amongst us create something solid for those who are demoralised to attach to.

For most of Western history liberalism did not seek to rule by its own principles alone as the only source of authority or value; there was a fusion with more traditional values.

It is true that liberalism was not immediately, totally victorious. However, it is now totally victorious; none of its gains can be reversed without abandoning certain hallmarks of western civilization like "democracy" and "free speech".

there never was some kind of great showdown between the massed forces of liberalism and the massed forces of traditionalism.

That ought to tell you something right there! Namely, traditionalism is so weak that it never had the will or capability to mass its forces to defeat liberalism.

If traditionalism was incapable of defeating liberalism when traditionalism "owned" society and the cultural high ground, what reason is there to think that traditionalism can win now that liberalism owns society and the cultural high ground?

How can we tell if traditionalist ideas will succeed in the marketplace of ideas if they are never put out there?

Traditionalist ideas are out there and have been defeated in the marketplace of ideas. That is why the idea that "you can't turn back the clock" is almost universally accepted.

One thing traditionalists are up against is that many Western men are dispirited and don't have the heart to resist - they would rather find a multitude of ways of giving up.

A further sign that traditionalism has been defeated in the marketplace of ideas.

If traditionalism was incapable of defeating liberalism when traditionalism "owned" society and the cultural high ground, what reason is there to think that traditionalism can win now that liberalism owns society and the cultural high ground?

But traditionalism did not "own" society. Liberalism did, but it did not attempt to rule consistently by its own principles in all spheres of society - this only began to happen during the course of the twentieth century.

We have had a liberal establishment for a long time, and liberal control of the media and education systems, and its support amongst the monied elite, has meant that there has been no free marketplace of ideas in which liberalism and traditionalism have battled it out.

That doesn't mean that liberalism is destined to rule forever. In 1975 it seemed as if the communist bloc was a permanent fact of life - that it had won in the "marketplace of ideas" - but that ideology was soon to fail.

Traditionalism owned society at least until 1945 and arguably until the 1960s.

There was no traditionalist political party in Australia in 1945. There was a Labor Party and a newly formed Liberal Party. The Liberal Party stood for classical liberalism; it was, as Menzies put it, a "progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise".

Politics in 1945 was just the same as politics in 1985 - a contest between a left-liberal party and a right-liberal one. And at both times you had a commercial class which tended to be right-liberal and an intellectual class which was mostly left-liberal.

That was the straitjacket of Australian politics. Traditionalism in 1945 not only did not "own" society, it was nowhere to be seen.

Ours doesn't. Our society is a ratchet that only moves left, not a pendulum that swings back and forth.

You're stuck and persist in this linear view of societies when it is mostly untrue.

Liberalism did, but it did not attempt to rule consistently by its own principles in all spheres of society - this only began to happen during the course of the twentieth century.

I think Anonymous clearly disregards this factor. He doesn't see the "unprincipled exception" of liberalism where a non-liberal value constrains liberalism in its purest form.

I totally disagree. Traditionalism owned society at least until 1945 and arguably until the 1960s.

Truly? You are incorrect. Traditionalism and religion were attacked beforehand. They were attacked during the French Revolution, the Enlightment, the era of Darwinianism (theory of evolution) and other periods.

There was a free market of ideas. Traditionalism LOST. That is why liberalism now dominates.

You're stuck and persist in this linear view of societies when it is mostly untrue.

Nonsense. You are stuck in some cyclical view of society when there is no evidence to support it whatsoever. Name a significant liberal innovation in politics or culture that has been reversed.

He doesn't see the "unprincipled exception" of liberalism where a non-liberal value constrains liberalism in its purest form.

I have yet to see such a constraint that has proven anything but temporary.

Traditionalism and religion were attacked beforehand. They were attacked during the French Revolution, the Enlightment, the era of Darwinianism (theory of evolution) and other periods.

They were attacked but traditionalism owned the high ground of society. The situation is reversed now; liberalism owns the high ground of society and traditionalism is feebly and ineffectually trying to attack it (or more accurately, to resist its further advance).

There most certainly was in the US and Britain. In any event, I suspect BOTH the political parties in Australia in 1945 would be considered hopelessly reactionary by the standards of today's Australian progressives.

Nonsense. You are stuck in some cyclical view of society when there is no evidence to support it whatsoever. Name a significant liberal innovation in politics or culture that has been reversed.

Did I say anything about inovation? No. I stated how societies go through periods of conservatism and liberalism. Right now we're in the liberal era. Apologies for being blunt but you're starting to strike me as a liberal writing.

I have yet to see such a constraint that has proven anything but temporary.

That's the entire point.

They were attacked but traditionalism owned the high ground of society. The situation is reversed now; liberalism owns the high ground of society and traditionalism is feebly and ineffectually trying to attack it (or more accurately, to resist its further advance).

Not really. When traditionalism and religion became attacked it lost the high ground of society little by little. You seem to be mistaking the massive social capital built by conservatism for conservatism itself. As of now the capital is rapidly dwindling and that's when pure liberalism comes into play. Which is why you're seeing less "conservatives" and more ineffectual attacks. Most were never conservative in the first place. And we don't have a lot of attacks because we're only recently starting to organize and building some form of movement.